Jones v. Kerrville State Hosp., 97-50321
| Decision Date | 04 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-50321,97-50321 |
| Parties | 8 A.D. Cases 129, 13 NDLR P 15 Cora Jean JONES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KERRVILLE STATE HOSPITAL; Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation; Gloria P. Olsen Ph.D., in her individual and official capacities; Edward Baskin, in his individual and official capacities; Larue Hawkins, in her individual and official capacities; Beryl Boerner, in her individual and official capacities, Defendants, Kerrville State Hospital; Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Defendants-Appellants. Summary Calendar. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
A.J. Halm, Fredericksburg, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Dedra Lynn Wilburn, Austin, TX, for Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
I.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Cora Jean Jones, was employed as an LVN at the Kerrville State Hospital ("Kerrville"), a facility operated by the Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation ("TDMHMR") for the care and treatment of the mentally ill. Upon being hired at Kerrville, Jones was required to complete a course of training in the Prevention and Management of Aggressive Behavior ("PMAB"), followed by a yearly refresher course. PMAB training included a physical portion, wherein employees were trained to use the weight and force of the patient to subdue them with the least risk of harm to the employee or patient. This portion of the PMAB training was known as the "mats" portion, because it was conducted on padded mats.
Upon being hired at Kerrville in September, 1992, Jones took the PMAB training course. She informed her instructors that she could not participate in the "mats" portion, because she had physical limitations caused by surgical treatments of osteoarthritis and degenerative joint disease. 1 She was not required to participate in the "mats" portion, and yet her employment records reflect that she completed PMAB training.
In March, 1993, Jones was asked to transfer to another ward to cover for an LVN who had not been able to complete the "mats" portion of PMAB. She notified the supervisor that she too had not been able to complete the "mats" portion of PMAB training. Jones' case was presented to the hospital's Americans with Disabilities Committee on Jones' request for an accommodation, i.e., exemption from the "mats" portion of PMAB. Jones' immediate supervisor, Barbara Gotcher, stated on a form submitted to the ADA committee that Jones' disability "[did] not affect safety of individuals served, [did] not affect personal safety, and [did] not affect safety of co-workers." Dr. Mitchell also submitted a statement indicating that Jones could perform the duties of her current position. Jones testified at trial that during her time at Kerrville, she never saw the techniques taught in the "mats" portion actually used. The ADA committee took no action on Jones' request for accommodation. She heard nothing further from the ADA committee and she was allowed to remain at her original position until September, 1993, when it came time for Jones to participate in the PMAB refresher course. Again she could not participate in the "mats" portion. After a consultation with Beryl Boerner, Director of Nurses, Jones was notified on October 29, 1993, that she could no longer work in a direct-care position. 2 On November 3, 1993, Jones was placed on leave without pay.
Jones sued under the Americans with Disability Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. The case against Kerrville and TDMHMR went to the jury on special interrogatories. The jury found "that successful completion of the more physical aspects of PMAB training is an essential function of the position of licensed vocational nurse at Kerrville State Hospital." The jury then found "that an exemption from completion of the more physical aspects of PMAB training would be a reasonable accommodation of Plaintiff Cora Jean Jones' disability." The jury awarded Jones $25,000 in compensatory damages.
Jones filed a motion for equitable relief (injunctive relief, back pay and front pay in lieu of reinstatement), and motion for attorney's fees and costs. Defendants opposed Jones' motion for equitable relief and filed their own Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law, or, in the alternative, motion for new trial. The district court Jones filed a Supplemental Motion for Equitable Relief, Advisory for Back Pay and Front Pay and Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees. Defendants filed their objections. Then, before the district court could rule on Jones' supplemental motions, Defendants filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of their Rule 60(b) motion, the award of back pay and front pay, and the award of attorney's fees. Subsequent to the filing of this appeal, the district court entered its order establishing the exact amounts of front pay and back pay awarded to Jones. Jones has filed a motion to supplement the record with the district court's order establishing the exact amounts of front and back pay. That motion is granted, and therefore we need not address Appellee's motion to dismiss for lack of a final order.
denied Defendants' Rule 60(b) motion and Jones' request for injunctive relief. The district court granted Jones' motion for back pay and front pay "in specific amounts to be determined by future Court order". The district court directed Jones to file an advisory "detailing the amount of back pay requested[,] ... recalculating that amount to the date of this judgment" and "also contain[ing] a detailed breakdown of all components of Plaintiff's request for front pay and specify[ing] the manner in which that request has been calculated." Finally, the district court granted Jones' motion for attorney's fees and costs
II.
"A motion for judgment as a matter of law ... in an action tried by jury is a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict." Harrington v. Harris, 118 F.3d 359, 367 (5th Cir.1997), quoting Hiltgen v. Sumrall, 47 F.3d 695, 699 (5th Cir.1995). "On review of the district court's denial of such a motion, the appellate court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guerin v. Pointe Coupee Parish Nursing Home
...Corp., 255 F.3d 254, 258 (5th Cir.2001). 32. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). 33. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). 34. See Jones v. Kerrville State Hospital, 142 F.3d 263 (5th Cir.1998). 35. See Allen v. Rapides Parish School Board, 204 F.3d 619 (5th 36. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B). 37. Gile v. United Airlines, ......
-
Feld Motor Sports, Inc. v. Traxxas, LP.
...supporting the jury's verdict.” Ford v. Cimarron Ins. Co., Inc. , 230 F.3d 828, 830 (5th Cir.2000) (quoting Jones v. Kerrville State Hosp. , 142 F.3d 263, 265 (5th Cir.1998) )(quoting Harrington v. Harris , 118 F.3d 359, 367 (5th Cir.1997) ) (internal citations omitted). Judgment as a matte......
-
Geoffrion v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC.
...supporting the jury's verdict." Ford v. Cimarron Ins. Co., Inc. , 230 F.3d 828, 830 (5th Cir.2000) (quoting Jones v. Kerrville State Hosp. , 142 F.3d 263, 265 (5th Cir.1998) ) (quoting Harrington v. Harris , 118 F.3d 359, 367 (5th Cir.1997) ) (internal citations omitted). Judgment as a matt......
-
Davis v. Brennan, Civil Action No. 3:17-CV-3347-N-BH
...it did not raise a genuine fact issue as to whether employee was "qualified" under the ADA) (citing Jones v. Kerrville State Hosp., 142 F.3d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1998); see, e.g., Magnant v. Panelmatic Texas, Inc., No. CIV.A. H-05-0135, 2006 WL 2434475, at *14 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2006) ("The ......
-
Defendant's requested jury instructions and written interrogatories
...F. Supp. 465, 475 (N.D. Tex. 1997). 525 Robertson v. Neuromedical Ctr., 161 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998); Jones v. Kerrville State Hosp., 142 F.3d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1998); Barber v. Nabors Drilling Co., 130 F.3d 702, 709 (5th Cir. 626 Beaver, 43 F. Supp.2d at 694. 727 See Seaman v. C.S.P.......
-
Defendant's requested jury instructions and written interrogatories
...F. Supp. 465, 475 (N.D. Tex. 1997). 525 Robertson v. Neuromedical Ctr., 161 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998); Jones v. Kerrville State Hosp., 142 F.3d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1998); Barber v. Nabors Drilling Co., 130 F.3d 702, 709 (5th Cir. 626 Beaver, 43 F. Supp.2d at 694. 727 See Seaman v. C.S.P.......
-
Defendant's Requested Jury Instructions and Written Interrogatories
...F. Supp. 465, 475 (N.D. Tex. 1997). 525 Robertson v. Neuromedical Ctr., 161 F.3d 292, 295 (5th Cir. 1998); Jones v. Kerrville State Hosp., 142 F.3d 263, 265 (5th Cir. 1998); Barber v. Nabors Drilling Co., 130 F.3d 702, 709 (5th Cir. 626 Beaver, 43 F. Supp.2d at 694. 727 See Seaman v. C.S.P.......